Not that I would ever nitpick, but the Washington Post's nitpicking of Romney's speech today in an editorial, "No Freedom Without Religion," is typical of contemporary victimizing -- that you're offending a particular group by not mentioning them. In this case, Romney apparently offended atheists by not including them in his call for religion tolerance.

Where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity.

Question: Where did Romney say that atheists (or Buddhists or Hindus or Wiccans or any of the other faiths he didn't mention) didn't deserve equal dignity? And where exactly would atheists fit in a speech that was about, in addition to religious freedom, assuaging Christian voters about his own beliefs?

If the Post wanted to criticize, it could very well have gone after Romney's assault on secularism, which was one of the more pointed passages of the speech. Decrying efforts to rid the public square of any religious sentiment was a direct assault on organizations like the ACLU and other groups and individuals that have gone to court over things like Nativity scenes and "under God" in the Pledge.